Why are Pit Bulls used for organized fighting then? Also, I suggest a way around the unconstitutionallity of the law would be to ban many many dogs as well as Pit Bulls.
I love dogs, but there are too mant white trash dog owners out there using dangerous breeds as weapons, and not obeying leash laws.
I don\’t own, never have owned, and never plan to own a Pit Bull, but I am disheartened that a municipality chose to pick a breed to attempt to eliminate. Pit Bulls can sometimes be placid, playful pets and beagles can be terrible biters. Where is the justice. I know, some Pit Bulls have done terrible things, but they are not alone. Why not just ban ownership of dogs, then cats (which destroy flower gardens and and are never under control), what next – pet Goldfish?
Typical democratic state and politicians, i expect nothing less from the home of Bill Clinton. Lets focus on the problem here which is a select few Pit Bull owners and breeders who teach these dogs to fight. Killing the dog(s) is NOT the answer!!! I am outraged, but not surprised.
My kids gre up with pit bulls and they are just ***** cats. How many times have you heard that. These are the MOST unstable animals around, an yes, the city is being breed specific because there is a need to be. When was the last time you saw a cocker spaniel, a collie, a border collie, or any dog just randomly go NUTS? You want to own one, buy insurance and move WAY out in the country away from people.
A lot of drug dealers find pit bulls quite attractive. There are plenty of meth labs in the ArkLaTex area. Maybe the humane thing to do would be to relocate the dogs out of Pine Bluff and closer to the meth labs.
Plenty of \”domesticated\” animals have attacked humans. I have seen labs, dalmations and other dogs randomly attack human or go \”NUTS\”. It is stupid to ban pits because of a couple of incidents. What next? Cars, alcohol or handguns? This ban is a smokescreen and complete political pandering regardless of part affliation.
Pit Bulls are not banned just because they go nuts. Its based on jaw strengh. When the beagle or dolmation goes nuts, you can usually survive it, the Pit Bull will kill any woman or child. Also, Arkansas is a RED state you dufuss. IF your dog is statistically prooven to be more likely to kill someone, shouldnt you have to pay more for insurance?
The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner\’s right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws \”have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls.\” The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore \”arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.\”
On appeal, Tellings challenged the constitutionality of two of the laws. The appellate court, in reaching it’s decision, considered the transcript of the trial court, which reflected five days of testimony by 16 witnesses, many of them experts. In the process of reviewing this record, the court learned that many of the \”beliefs and ‘myths’ about pit bulls [were] simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical, or canine behavior principles\”.
Although the court concluded that since pit bulls, which are either an American Staffordshire Terrior, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or an American Pit Bull Terrior, have qualities like gameness, or stick-to-it-ness, as well as an affinity to \”bite and hold,\” most public opinions about this highly obedient, eager to please breed are not based facts. For example, the court found the pit bull has neither a locking jaw, nor more strength different from other dogs of it’s size and build. The court also discussed at length how ten breeds of non-pit bull dogs are easily confused with a pit bull. The court noted that although some pit bulls have unsavory owners, many are well behaved family pets.
The court also berated reliance upon \”bare statistics\” about the pit bull breed, which do not reflect the relationship between the incidents and the total breed population. The court noted that the assertion that pit bulls have a bite force of 2,000 pounds per square inch is not supported by scientific evidence.
In terms of the court’s constitutional analysis, the court found that the state laws denied Tellings’ his constitutional procedural due process rights, which include the meaningful oppor-tunity to be heard before a determination of vicious dog is made. The court pointed to a 2004 Ohio Supreme Court decision, State v. Cowen, which addressed this issue.
The court expressed disdain for the \”regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed\”. The court determined that these kinds of laws, based upon mere ownership, were \”arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory\”. Thus, the court found R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) unconstitutional as the law bore no real or substantive relationship to a state interest.
For similar reasons, the court struck down T.M.C. Section 505.14, which limited a person to own only one vicious dog. Laws which \”relied on the now disproved presumption that pit bulls, as a breed, are inherently dangerous, are unconstitutional since they lack a rational or real and substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest\”.
And, finally, the court determined that the \”statutes violate the defendant’s rights to due process because there is no rational basis to identify a pit bull.\” Essentially, this is a void for vagueness standards, since so many dogs look like pit bulls. In summary, the court struck down both breed-specific statutes and ordinances pertaining to unconstitutional vicious dog laws, based upon lengthy legal consideration of fact and fiction about pit bulls.
I leave the pit bull with my baby. I let them sleep together in the crib. THey are so cute together. Heck, I put my five kids in bed with five of our dogs. No one ever gets hurt. YOu idiots are pure white trash. just becasue you are dumb enough to put your kids with dogs, does not mean that they are not vicious breeds. Dumb asses.
Why hasn\’t it happened in 99% of these dogs then. 4.4 million registered, 8 million estimated. That means the vast majority (millions upon millions) don\’t \”literaly bite them in the *&^%$(.\”
Here\’s a link to a letter from the president of the A.T.T.S. concerning temperaments in pit bulls, enjoy.
I suggest you do some reading on canine aggression. Here\’s a good start.
By Dr M Malini DVM
Canine Behavior
1. Genes do not cause anything. They don\’t cause breast cancer;
they don\’t cause aggression; they don\’t cause blue eyes or floppy
ears. Saying that genes cause problems is a device used by those
who a) dont know any better or b) are seeking a quick-and-dirty
way to reduce an incredibly complex concept to a sound-bite for
the masses.
2. Aggression per se is not a problem. There isn\’t a single living being who doesn\’t owe his, her,
or its existence to the willingness of his, her, or its ancestors to display aggression. Sperm
compete with each other, developing mother and fetus fight over scarce resources, as do
developing young from moment of conception until death possibly years later. Without a
willingness to display aggression, none of us would be here. To me that means that the
probability of any DNA associated with aggression in any dog breed being relegated to that
relatively small amount that separates one breed from another is extremely low. The principle of
conservation of energy would seem to guarantee that aggression is simply too fundamental and
important a characteristic for survival in all living beings for that DNA associated with it to be
distributed that way. It seems far more likely that all the \”recipes\” for aggression reside in that
large lump of genetic material we share with at least the bulk of animal life if not all living things.
3. No agreement exists on the definition of normal aggression, let alone problem aggression. A
dog who attacks a serial killer trying to off his owner is a hero; a dog who attacks the local
minister is a killer. Some owners think a dog has a right to bite a child who kicks the animal;
other people believe that no dog should ever bite any human under any circumstances. Some
clients come to me because their dogs bit someone else after biting only family members for
years. Other comes for exactly the opposite reason: the dog is now biting them as well as
everyone else.
4. Even if we could agree on a definition of problem aggression and isolate what will surely be
the multiple genes associated with it, the most we could do would be to attribute that particular
behavior to a particular dog in a particular situation. That is, behavior only has meaning in
context. Behaviors may be described as, for example, dominant or subordinate, but the dogs
cannot be except in that particular situation.
5. Police, shelter workers, insurance company reps, medical personnel and others who may be
involved in dog bite cases often have little or no knowledge of normal dog behavior. Because of
this, they often don\’t get any kind of meaningful history because they don\’t know the right
questions to ask. Consequently, in order to say anything meaningful about the attack, we need a
decent history. Without it, the most we can do is guess which is, unfortunately, more often the
case than not.
6. In volume VII, No #4 1994 of the interdisciplinary bond journal, Anthrozoos, theres an
interesting article entitled \”Dog on a Tightrope: The position of the dog in British society as
influenced by press reports (1988 to 1992)\” by Anthony Podberscek. Although theoretically dated
as research articles go, the material is a fine example of the old saying that the more things
change, the more they stay the same. Podberscek contends that \”the media, public, and
government response to dog attacks is an overreaction to the generally held ideal that the dogs
position in society is as a loyal and faithful companion,\” a relationship based on what those of
us in the bond arena refer to \”disneyfication.\” Because of the ideal arises from myth rather than
recognition of normal canine behavior, the dogs relationship to us is highly unstable. Podberscek
also points out that, even though rottweilers and GSDs were involved in numerous attacks, both
of these breeds were eliminated from Britains Dangerous Dogs Act which only named four
breeds: \”the type known as Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Filo
Braziliero.\” The fact that the latter two breeds didn\’t exist in the UK and there was only one
Tosa in the country at that time makes it clear that this law was not about protecting the public
from dog attacks. I agree with Poberscek that the reason these dogs were targeted and the far, far,
more numerous rottwieler\’s and GSD\’s were not was because the former were associated with
drug dealers whereas the latter were associated with the police work and as guardians of estates
and places of business. Thus the banned dogs became the symbol of what the media and public
hoped to do to the drug dealers lock them up, muzzle them, or put them down.
It seems to me that 10 years later, the parallels between breed bans and ethnic cleansing and the
fact that those viewed as minorities in certain areas may still be over-represented among drug
dealers and dog fighters suggest that this projected symbolism remains alive and well.
7. Relative to the medias penchant for seeing a pit bull every time they report a dog attack, it
reminds me of a phenomenon in psychiatry known as \”semantic contagion.\” A corollary of this
is medicine is\”meetingitis.\” What happens is that, as soon as someone starts writing or talking
about a problem, people start to see it everywhere. Years ago everyone was having nervous
breakdowns, then they were all schizophrenics. Now everyone\’s depressed. My dentist is so
susceptible to this that I always make sure not to schedule an appointment with him for the
week after he returns from a meeting because I knew that, regardless what problem I went in
with, Ill come out with the one he heard about that week. I used to work for a veterinarian who
did the same with medical diseases and I know the same thing happens with behavioral
problems. In spite of the fact that no agreed on definition for separation anxiety exists (either), its
surprising how many dogs now have this problem. Given the tendency for the human mind to
work this way, it wouldn\’t surprise me if the same thing happens in the media when it comes to
pinning breed labels on dogs. Granted some unscrupulous journalists undoubtedly will refer to a
biting dog as a pit bull or pit bull type even if the animal is obviously a ShiTzu if it might
increase the chance the wire services will pick up the article. However, I think that, aside from
whatever breeds a person happens to know from personal experience, most people recognize
relatively few purebreds. Rather they lump dogs in often highly nonspecific, arbitrary groups
such as \”yappy little dogs\” or \”squashed nosed ones.\” Hence the person who looked at the
Boston terrier and said, \”Is that a mini-pit bull?\”
8. In keeping with disneyfication, the human-animal bond is often reduced to a public relations
or marketing device. In reality, the nature of the human-canine relationship plays a critical role
in canine aggression. In spite of the fact that owners often express shock when their dog bites
them or someone else, a complete history of the dog and its relationship reveals a scenario that
more often than not unfolds like a Greek tragedy. The question is rarely if these dogs will bite,
but merely when, who, and where. Just as its virtually impossible to change a dogs or humans
behavior without changing their physiology and vice versa, its also impossible to change their
relationship without changing the other two. What those who seek to ban breeds and even
ultimately the entire domestic canine species fail to recognize is that humans and dogs
co-evolved for thousands of years. We are as physiologically and behaviorally dependent on
them as they are on us. At the same time that we think were training them, they\’re training us. At
the same time as theyre enhancing (or undermining) our health, were doing the same to them.
Behavioral ecologist Ray Coppinger refers to dogs as parasites. I would agree that they do
function as physical parasites, but we even the ante by emotionally parasitizing them by
projecting our most intimate and sometimes neurotic and totally self-serving symbolism on them,
unmindful of the stress this may create. (Although some dogs are becoming highly skilled
emotional parasites, too.)
9. Because of the physiological and behavioral effects of domestication, the ideal human-canine
relationship should mimic that between a mature adult animal and a pup. The term used for the
parental role is leader rather than parent to distinguish this relationship from primate
parenthood. This is necessary because primate parenthood is initially highly reactive, a form of
adult response that communicates subordination in canines. Unfortunately, many people
erroneously associate leadership with (reactive) dominance and dominance with the ability to
win fights. The net result is that aggressive dogs often don\’t recognize human leadership because
their owners don\’t communicate it. Instead they see their owners as competitors or pups. This
relationship then affects how they related to other people, too. In my experience, owners and
others don\’t communicate leadership to dogs either because they don\’t know how or because
they don\’t want to be leaders. (We also happen to live in a society in which the lack of human
role models is rampant with those championed as \”leaders\” actually being energy-squandering
folk who lack sufficient leadership skill that they have no choice but to dominate by force. The
true leader isn\’t the individual who wins the fight, but rather the one who possesses so much
presence he or she need\’nt fight at all.)
Myrna Milani D.V.M.
TippingPoint, Inc.
Charlestown, NH
Canine Genetics and Behavior
By Glen Bui
\” To state that a breed of dog is aggressive is scientifically impossible. Statistics do not support
such a finding. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and within all breeds there
can be dangerous dogs because of owner issues such as training the dog to attack, lack of
training and socialization.
There is no such thing as the \”Mean Gene\” in dogs as well as in people. However mutant genes
have been discovered. Alteration of a single DNA base in the gene encoding an enzyme called
monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) has been found to render the enzyme nonfunctional. This
enzyme normally catalyzes reactions that metabolize the neurotransmitters dopamine,
serotonin, and noradrenaline. What this does is cause slight mental impairment which interferes
with the ability to cope with certain situations resulting in aggression. There is no proof and
there never has been that the American Pit Bull Terrier possesses mutant genes. There is a one
in ten thousand chance of a mutant gene appearing in a population.
Aggressiveness has many definitions and its stimulus of the environment that causes behavior.
Dogs defend territory, they exhibit dominance and if allowed can become protective of their
family. All this behavior can be controlled by the owner and aggression is mainly an act of
behavior.
To make claim that the American Pit Bull Terrier can cause more severe injury than other
breeds is ludicrous. Over 30 breeds of dogs are responsible for over 500 fatal attacks in the last
30 years, every victim was severely injured. The American Pit Bull Terrier is clearly a useful
member of society, the breed was World War One Hero, its rated as having one of the best
overall temperaments in the United States (A.T.T.S.). The breed is used for dog show
competitions, therapy, service work, search and rescue, police work and companionship. Man
has domesticated dogs to the point they serve as companions, workers, and even objects of
beauty. Dogs will protect man, see for him, hunt for him and play. One breed is not more
inherently good or evil, vicious, harmful or helpful. It is man who is responsible for the dogs
behavior, not the breed of dog. Those passing breed bans fail to understand that a mis-trained
Pit Bull can be replaced with another breed. People determine whether dogs will be useful
members of a community or a nuisance. It is the people who allow their dogs to become
dangerous and legislators must control and punish the people.\”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Why are Pit Bulls used for organized fighting then? Also, I suggest a way around the unconstitutionallity of the law would be to ban many many dogs as well as Pit Bulls.
I love dogs, but there are too mant white trash dog owners out there using dangerous breeds as weapons, and not obeying leash laws.
I don\’t own, never have owned, and never plan to own a Pit Bull, but I am disheartened that a municipality chose to pick a breed to attempt to eliminate. Pit Bulls can sometimes be placid, playful pets and beagles can be terrible biters. Where is the justice. I know, some Pit Bulls have done terrible things, but they are not alone. Why not just ban ownership of dogs, then cats (which destroy flower gardens and and are never under control), what next – pet Goldfish?
Typical democratic state and politicians, i expect nothing less from the home of Bill Clinton. Lets focus on the problem here which is a select few Pit Bull owners and breeders who teach these dogs to fight. Killing the dog(s) is NOT the answer!!! I am outraged, but not surprised.
My kids gre up with pit bulls and they are just ***** cats. How many times have you heard that. These are the MOST unstable animals around, an yes, the city is being breed specific because there is a need to be. When was the last time you saw a cocker spaniel, a collie, a border collie, or any dog just randomly go NUTS? You want to own one, buy insurance and move WAY out in the country away from people.
A lot of drug dealers find pit bulls quite attractive. There are plenty of meth labs in the ArkLaTex area. Maybe the humane thing to do would be to relocate the dogs out of Pine Bluff and closer to the meth labs.
Plenty of \”domesticated\” animals have attacked humans. I have seen labs, dalmations and other dogs randomly attack human or go \”NUTS\”. It is stupid to ban pits because of a couple of incidents. What next? Cars, alcohol or handguns? This ban is a smokescreen and complete political pandering regardless of part affliation.
Pit Bulls are not banned just because they go nuts. Its based on jaw strengh. When the beagle or dolmation goes nuts, you can usually survive it, the Pit Bull will kill any woman or child. Also, Arkansas is a RED state you dufuss. IF your dog is statistically prooven to be more likely to kill someone, shouldnt you have to pay more for insurance?
The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner\’s right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws \”have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls.\” The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore \”arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.\”
On appeal, Tellings challenged the constitutionality of two of the laws. The appellate court, in reaching it’s decision, considered the transcript of the trial court, which reflected five days of testimony by 16 witnesses, many of them experts. In the process of reviewing this record, the court learned that many of the \”beliefs and ‘myths’ about pit bulls [were] simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical, or canine behavior principles\”.
Although the court concluded that since pit bulls, which are either an American Staffordshire Terrior, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or an American Pit Bull Terrior, have qualities like gameness, or stick-to-it-ness, as well as an affinity to \”bite and hold,\” most public opinions about this highly obedient, eager to please breed are not based facts. For example, the court found the pit bull has neither a locking jaw, nor more strength different from other dogs of it’s size and build. The court also discussed at length how ten breeds of non-pit bull dogs are easily confused with a pit bull. The court noted that although some pit bulls have unsavory owners, many are well behaved family pets.
The court also berated reliance upon \”bare statistics\” about the pit bull breed, which do not reflect the relationship between the incidents and the total breed population. The court noted that the assertion that pit bulls have a bite force of 2,000 pounds per square inch is not supported by scientific evidence.
In terms of the court’s constitutional analysis, the court found that the state laws denied Tellings’ his constitutional procedural due process rights, which include the meaningful oppor-tunity to be heard before a determination of vicious dog is made. The court pointed to a 2004 Ohio Supreme Court decision, State v. Cowen, which addressed this issue.
The court expressed disdain for the \”regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed\”. The court determined that these kinds of laws, based upon mere ownership, were \”arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory\”. Thus, the court found R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) unconstitutional as the law bore no real or substantive relationship to a state interest.
For similar reasons, the court struck down T.M.C. Section 505.14, which limited a person to own only one vicious dog. Laws which \”relied on the now disproved presumption that pit bulls, as a breed, are inherently dangerous, are unconstitutional since they lack a rational or real and substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest\”.
And, finally, the court determined that the \”statutes violate the defendant’s rights to due process because there is no rational basis to identify a pit bull.\” Essentially, this is a void for vagueness standards, since so many dogs look like pit bulls. In summary, the court struck down both breed-specific statutes and ordinances pertaining to unconstitutional vicious dog laws, based upon lengthy legal consideration of fact and fiction about pit bulls.
I leave the pit bull with my baby. I let them sleep together in the crib. THey are so cute together. Heck, I put my five kids in bed with five of our dogs. No one ever gets hurt. YOu idiots are pure white trash. just becasue you are dumb enough to put your kids with dogs, does not mean that they are not vicious breeds. Dumb asses.
Why hasn\’t it happened in 99% of these dogs then. 4.4 million registered, 8 million estimated. That means the vast majority (millions upon millions) don\’t \”literaly bite them in the *&^%$(.\”
Here\’s a link to a letter from the president of the A.T.T.S. concerning temperaments in pit bulls, enjoy.
http://americancaninefoudationlaw.com/files/ATTSletter.pdf
I suggest you do some reading on canine aggression. Here\’s a good start.
By Dr M Malini DVM
Canine Behavior
1. Genes do not cause anything. They don\’t cause breast cancer;
they don\’t cause aggression; they don\’t cause blue eyes or floppy
ears. Saying that genes cause problems is a device used by those
who a) dont know any better or b) are seeking a quick-and-dirty
way to reduce an incredibly complex concept to a sound-bite for
the masses.
2. Aggression per se is not a problem. There isn\’t a single living being who doesn\’t owe his, her,
or its existence to the willingness of his, her, or its ancestors to display aggression. Sperm
compete with each other, developing mother and fetus fight over scarce resources, as do
developing young from moment of conception until death possibly years later. Without a
willingness to display aggression, none of us would be here. To me that means that the
probability of any DNA associated with aggression in any dog breed being relegated to that
relatively small amount that separates one breed from another is extremely low. The principle of
conservation of energy would seem to guarantee that aggression is simply too fundamental and
important a characteristic for survival in all living beings for that DNA associated with it to be
distributed that way. It seems far more likely that all the \”recipes\” for aggression reside in that
large lump of genetic material we share with at least the bulk of animal life if not all living things.
3. No agreement exists on the definition of normal aggression, let alone problem aggression. A
dog who attacks a serial killer trying to off his owner is a hero; a dog who attacks the local
minister is a killer. Some owners think a dog has a right to bite a child who kicks the animal;
other people believe that no dog should ever bite any human under any circumstances. Some
clients come to me because their dogs bit someone else after biting only family members for
years. Other comes for exactly the opposite reason: the dog is now biting them as well as
everyone else.
4. Even if we could agree on a definition of problem aggression and isolate what will surely be
the multiple genes associated with it, the most we could do would be to attribute that particular
behavior to a particular dog in a particular situation. That is, behavior only has meaning in
context. Behaviors may be described as, for example, dominant or subordinate, but the dogs
cannot be except in that particular situation.
5. Police, shelter workers, insurance company reps, medical personnel and others who may be
involved in dog bite cases often have little or no knowledge of normal dog behavior. Because of
this, they often don\’t get any kind of meaningful history because they don\’t know the right
questions to ask. Consequently, in order to say anything meaningful about the attack, we need a
decent history. Without it, the most we can do is guess which is, unfortunately, more often the
case than not.
6. In volume VII, No #4 1994 of the interdisciplinary bond journal, Anthrozoos, theres an
interesting article entitled \”Dog on a Tightrope: The position of the dog in British society as
influenced by press reports (1988 to 1992)\” by Anthony Podberscek. Although theoretically dated
as research articles go, the material is a fine example of the old saying that the more things
change, the more they stay the same. Podberscek contends that \”the media, public, and
government response to dog attacks is an overreaction to the generally held ideal that the dogs
position in society is as a loyal and faithful companion,\” a relationship based on what those of
us in the bond arena refer to \”disneyfication.\” Because of the ideal arises from myth rather than
recognition of normal canine behavior, the dogs relationship to us is highly unstable. Podberscek
also points out that, even though rottweilers and GSDs were involved in numerous attacks, both
of these breeds were eliminated from Britains Dangerous Dogs Act which only named four
breeds: \”the type known as Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Filo
Braziliero.\” The fact that the latter two breeds didn\’t exist in the UK and there was only one
Tosa in the country at that time makes it clear that this law was not about protecting the public
from dog attacks. I agree with Poberscek that the reason these dogs were targeted and the far, far,
more numerous rottwieler\’s and GSD\’s were not was because the former were associated with
drug dealers whereas the latter were associated with the police work and as guardians of estates
and places of business. Thus the banned dogs became the symbol of what the media and public
hoped to do to the drug dealers lock them up, muzzle them, or put them down.
It seems to me that 10 years later, the parallels between breed bans and ethnic cleansing and the
fact that those viewed as minorities in certain areas may still be over-represented among drug
dealers and dog fighters suggest that this projected symbolism remains alive and well.
7. Relative to the medias penchant for seeing a pit bull every time they report a dog attack, it
reminds me of a phenomenon in psychiatry known as \”semantic contagion.\” A corollary of this
is medicine is\”meetingitis.\” What happens is that, as soon as someone starts writing or talking
about a problem, people start to see it everywhere. Years ago everyone was having nervous
breakdowns, then they were all schizophrenics. Now everyone\’s depressed. My dentist is so
susceptible to this that I always make sure not to schedule an appointment with him for the
week after he returns from a meeting because I knew that, regardless what problem I went in
with, Ill come out with the one he heard about that week. I used to work for a veterinarian who
did the same with medical diseases and I know the same thing happens with behavioral
problems. In spite of the fact that no agreed on definition for separation anxiety exists (either), its
surprising how many dogs now have this problem. Given the tendency for the human mind to
work this way, it wouldn\’t surprise me if the same thing happens in the media when it comes to
pinning breed labels on dogs. Granted some unscrupulous journalists undoubtedly will refer to a
biting dog as a pit bull or pit bull type even if the animal is obviously a ShiTzu if it might
increase the chance the wire services will pick up the article. However, I think that, aside from
whatever breeds a person happens to know from personal experience, most people recognize
relatively few purebreds. Rather they lump dogs in often highly nonspecific, arbitrary groups
such as \”yappy little dogs\” or \”squashed nosed ones.\” Hence the person who looked at the
Boston terrier and said, \”Is that a mini-pit bull?\”
8. In keeping with disneyfication, the human-animal bond is often reduced to a public relations
or marketing device. In reality, the nature of the human-canine relationship plays a critical role
in canine aggression. In spite of the fact that owners often express shock when their dog bites
them or someone else, a complete history of the dog and its relationship reveals a scenario that
more often than not unfolds like a Greek tragedy. The question is rarely if these dogs will bite,
but merely when, who, and where. Just as its virtually impossible to change a dogs or humans
behavior without changing their physiology and vice versa, its also impossible to change their
relationship without changing the other two. What those who seek to ban breeds and even
ultimately the entire domestic canine species fail to recognize is that humans and dogs
co-evolved for thousands of years. We are as physiologically and behaviorally dependent on
them as they are on us. At the same time that we think were training them, they\’re training us. At
the same time as theyre enhancing (or undermining) our health, were doing the same to them.
Behavioral ecologist Ray Coppinger refers to dogs as parasites. I would agree that they do
function as physical parasites, but we even the ante by emotionally parasitizing them by
projecting our most intimate and sometimes neurotic and totally self-serving symbolism on them,
unmindful of the stress this may create. (Although some dogs are becoming highly skilled
emotional parasites, too.)
9. Because of the physiological and behavioral effects of domestication, the ideal human-canine
relationship should mimic that between a mature adult animal and a pup. The term used for the
parental role is leader rather than parent to distinguish this relationship from primate
parenthood. This is necessary because primate parenthood is initially highly reactive, a form of
adult response that communicates subordination in canines. Unfortunately, many people
erroneously associate leadership with (reactive) dominance and dominance with the ability to
win fights. The net result is that aggressive dogs often don\’t recognize human leadership because
their owners don\’t communicate it. Instead they see their owners as competitors or pups. This
relationship then affects how they related to other people, too. In my experience, owners and
others don\’t communicate leadership to dogs either because they don\’t know how or because
they don\’t want to be leaders. (We also happen to live in a society in which the lack of human
role models is rampant with those championed as \”leaders\” actually being energy-squandering
folk who lack sufficient leadership skill that they have no choice but to dominate by force. The
true leader isn\’t the individual who wins the fight, but rather the one who possesses so much
presence he or she need\’nt fight at all.)
Myrna Milani D.V.M.
TippingPoint, Inc.
Charlestown, NH
Canine Genetics and Behavior
By Glen Bui
\” To state that a breed of dog is aggressive is scientifically impossible. Statistics do not support
such a finding. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and within all breeds there
can be dangerous dogs because of owner issues such as training the dog to attack, lack of
training and socialization.
There is no such thing as the \”Mean Gene\” in dogs as well as in people. However mutant genes
have been discovered. Alteration of a single DNA base in the gene encoding an enzyme called
monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) has been found to render the enzyme nonfunctional. This
enzyme normally catalyzes reactions that metabolize the neurotransmitters dopamine,
serotonin, and noradrenaline. What this does is cause slight mental impairment which interferes
with the ability to cope with certain situations resulting in aggression. There is no proof and
there never has been that the American Pit Bull Terrier possesses mutant genes. There is a one
in ten thousand chance of a mutant gene appearing in a population.
Aggressiveness has many definitions and its stimulus of the environment that causes behavior.
Dogs defend territory, they exhibit dominance and if allowed can become protective of their
family. All this behavior can be controlled by the owner and aggression is mainly an act of
behavior.
To make claim that the American Pit Bull Terrier can cause more severe injury than other
breeds is ludicrous. Over 30 breeds of dogs are responsible for over 500 fatal attacks in the last
30 years, every victim was severely injured. The American Pit Bull Terrier is clearly a useful
member of society, the breed was World War One Hero, its rated as having one of the best
overall temperaments in the United States (A.T.T.S.). The breed is used for dog show
competitions, therapy, service work, search and rescue, police work and companionship. Man
has domesticated dogs to the point they serve as companions, workers, and even objects of
beauty. Dogs will protect man, see for him, hunt for him and play. One breed is not more
inherently good or evil, vicious, harmful or helpful. It is man who is responsible for the dogs
behavior, not the breed of dog. Those passing breed bans fail to understand that a mis-trained
Pit Bull can be replaced with another breed. People determine whether dogs will be useful
members of a community or a nuisance. It is the people who allow their dogs to become
dangerous and legislators must control and punish the people.\”